150

THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN NEGOTIATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

FERNANDO DE OLIVEIRA CARVALHO
ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA, PORTUGAL
FC@FE.UC.PT
AND

FELIPE SOBRAL
ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA, PORTUGAL
FSOBRAL@FE.UC.PT

150

ABSTRACT

In an increasingly competitive, dynamic and ambiguous business environment,

negotiation is critically important to the success and, ultimately, to the survival of companies.
Consequently, managers need to possess and constantly improve their negotiating
capabilities. Among the most important traits needed to negotiate successfully are several
communication skills. The main objective of our study is to identify and analyze the
importance that managers and executives of the 500 largest Portuguese companies attribute to
some communication characteristics, necessaries to negotiate effectively and efficiently in
uncertain and complex business environments. The 231 answers received demonstrate that
the studied communication skills are regarded as requirements of the highest importance in a
superior negotiator. However, we find some discrepancies when we cross-analyze the results
with demographic characteristics of those surveyed. For example, the most experienced
executives and those who have formal negotiation training recognize a greater importance to
the ability to listen, while women give a greater emphasis to non-verbal communication
(body language, posture, etc.). In addition, the negotiating styles (collaborative vs.
competitive) and the ethical behavior in negotiation of those surveyed seem to cause
significantly statistical differences concerning the importance they attribute to some of the
referred communication traits.

Keywords: Communication; Negotiation; Portugal; Business Administration

150

INTRODUCTION
Negotiation is a daily corporate reality of increasingly decisive importance to the
success of companies. Executives negotiate daily with clients and suppliers, with
shareholders, creditors, potential partners, and employees, among many others. The great
majority of tasks that take place in a business environment involve the exchange of
information and/or resources between departments or divisions, or between managers and
representatives of other organizations. All these types of exchanges require that managers
without formal power or authority over each other negotiate agreements that fulfill the
interests and needs of both parties. The capability to reach those agreements to negotiate
effectively is therefore, increasingly so, considered as a critical competence in modern
management (Ertel, 2000).
It is estimated that managers spend approximately 20% of their time negotiating and
that, probably, those 20% impact the remaining 80% of their activities (Baron, 1989). As a
result, it is not surprising that the ability to negotiate successfully is recognized as a necessary
skill in any individual interested in a position of power, status or responsibility (Mintzberg,
1973).
While using the definition of negotiation advanced by Walton and McKersie (1965) as
being the deliberate interaction of two or more complex social units which are attempting to
define or redefine the terms of their interdependence (page 35), we understand how
communication is, likely, one of the most fundamental elements of negotiation. Given that
negotiation is a reciprocal communication process with the intent to reach a common
decision, it is easy to understand why communication is the central tool of the negotiation
process (Chatman, Putnam and Sondak, 1991). It is through communication that the parties
establish or not a relationship of trust, clarify their preferences, perspectives and opinions, try
to understand the real interests and motivations of the other party and, above all, ratify the

150

terms of an agreement that will resolve an existing dispute. In order to accomplish that,
negotiators must: (1) be able to express themselves in a clear and precise manner; (2) be able
to encourage dialog, by asking question and giving answers; (3) be able to use and detect
non-verbal language; (4) be able to listen, preferably in a pro-active manner, clarifying and
rephrasing in their own words the content of the message; and (5) be able to persuade the
other party of their ideas, arguments and viewpoints.
This study, while a part of a wider investigation about the characteristics regarded as
fundamental traits to negotiators, has as its main objective the identification and analysis of
the importance ascribed to some communication skills, which, in the opinion of Portuguese
managers and executives, are necessary to negotiate successfully in complex and uncertain
business environments. We would also like to examine the relationships between the
communication skills that the surveyed perceive as important, their demographic
characteristics (gender, formal negotiation training, professional experience and industry) and
their negotiating profile (favored negotiating strategies and their ethical conduct).

LITERATURE REVIEW
Communication, verbal and non-verbal, is fundamental in reaching negotiation results
and in resolving conflicts. As Lewicki, Minton and Saunders (2000a) refer communication is
at the heart of the negotiating process (page 141). Although planning, preparation and the
definition of a strategy are critical elements to the success of a negotiation, it is through
communication that they are integrated in an overall logic and implemented. According to
Putnam and Poole (1987): the activity of having or managing a conflict occurs through
communication. More specifically, communication undergirds the setting and reframing of
goals; the defining and narrowing of conflicting issues; the developing of relationships
between disputants and among constituents; the selecting and implementing of strategies and

150

tactics; the generating, attacking, and defending of alternative solutions; and the reaching and
confirming of agreements. (page 550).
One of the major questions that communication and negotiation researchers have
attempted to answer is what is communicated during a negotiation. Considering that, it is
certain that the content of that communication is, at least partially, responsible for the
accomplished results (Olekalns, Smith and Walsh, 1996). To Tutzauer (1992) perhaps the
most important communication in a bargaining session are those in which the parties make
offers and counter-offers (page 67). However, communication in negotiation is not restricted
to the exchange of proposals. Negotiators also communicate to clarify their preferences,
viewpoints and perspectives, to exchange information and to persuade the other party of their
ideas and convictions. For these reasons, the ability to communicate has been considered as a
critical skill in a negotiator. As Fisher and Davis (1987) indicate, a successful negotiator
needs to know how to express himself/herself clearly, to capture the other partys attention
and know how to question and listen effectively.
Being information one of the main sources of negotiating power, it is up to the
negotiator to know how to ask questions and how to listen to the other party in order to try to
improve his/her negotiating approach and, consequently, his/her outcomes. To Nierenberg
(1976) knowing how to ask a question is an essential component of negotiation, as through it,
one can obtain information about the positions, arguments and needs of the other party. The
ability to listen is also unanimously recognized as one of the major traits required in top
negotiator. Shell (1999) considers that great negotiators are good listeners and ask a lot of
questions. To him, average negotiators are focused on themselves their problems, their
objectives, their perceptions. A superior negotiator prepares at home and brings a series of
questions in his/her head. He arguments that anything can be questioned and that the most

150

important attribute in a great negotiator is his/her willingness to be ignorant or play the role
of ignorant.
But communication in negotiation is not restricted to verbal communication. It is
important to consider all the non-verbal communication that takes place in a bargaining
session. Gestures and body language communicate just as effectively as words maybe
even more so. (Axtell, 1991, page 8). Shell (1999) also concurs that the ability for nonverbal expression is an important trait in managers, considering, however, that attention
should be focused on content and not on the form of communication. Thompson (2001)
considers non-verbal communication: (1) tone and pitch of voice; (2) facial expressions; (3)
eye contact; (4) interpersonal space; (5) posture; (6) body movements; (7) gestures; and (8)
touching. Non-verbal language is important because it conveys a series of clues about the real
feelings and intentions of the other side, giving relevant information to the negotiator.
Knowing how to use that type of communication to ones advantage is an attribute of only
superior negotiators. Thompson (2001), conducted a survey to 50 MBA students who had
concluded a negotiation simulation. The majority of students followed non-verbal clues,
namely: (1) eye contact people who lie avoid looking the other party straight in the eyes;
(2) close body posture tends to create more trust between the parties; and (3) movements
indicative of some tension, such biting of lips or playing with a pen, as a sign of nervousness
and anxiety. Other indicators were mentioned, such as the absence of gestures and emotional
outbursts. Table 1 shows some of the non-verbal behaviors that make people trust or distrust
their negotiation opponent; which doesnt mean that there is necessarily a direct relationship
between these behaviors and trust or distrust attitudes from the intervening negotiators. In
terms of the ability to use nonverbal communication, scientific evidences suggest that women
are more skilled than men (DePaulo and Friedman, 1998). Women are typically considered
more expressive, and men are viewed as more composed (Hall, 1987). However, in terms of

150

nonverbal interpretation and reception there are some differences. When their opponents are
being truthful, women are more accurate than men, but when they are deceptive, women tend
to be less accurate than men (Rosenthal and DePaulo, 1979a).
TABLE 1 NON-VERBAL LANGUAGE IN NEGOTIATION
BEHAVIORS THAT CREATE DISTRUST

BEHAVIORS THAT CREATE TRUST

Signs of nervousness, impatience; fidgeting

Direct speech

Excessive smiling; sheepish smiles

Open behavior and gestures

Excessively serious tone of voice; lack of emotion

Smiling

Lack of eye-to-eye contact (averting eyes)

Pointing

Excessively quiet attitude

Close proximity

Source: Adapted from Thompson (2001).

John Hammond (1979) was one of the pioneers in attempting to identify the
importance of the traits that distinguish a superior negotiator. Starting from a list of 34
characteristics, he performed a survey to 32 upper managers from one of the major American
banks about the relative importance of each one of those characteristics. Table 2 illustrates
the results concerning the different communication skills that this researcher included in his
study (scale from 1not important at all to 5 very important).
TABLE 2 IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN NEGOTIATION
RELATIVE POSITION BETWEEN 34

AVG.

SKILLS STUDIED

(FROM 1 TO 5)

Ability to express thoughts verbally

4th

4,4

Listening skill

5th

4,4

Ability to persuade others

8th

4,1

24th

3,2

29th

2,7

SKILL

Debating skill (skill in parrying questions and

answers across the table)
Skill in communicating through non-verbal
language (gestures, signs or silence)
Source: Adapted from Hammond (1979).

150

As we can verify, the characteristics related to communication skills always have a

high importance and are included in the main competences required for negotiators, namely
the ability to communicate verbally (4th most important, with 4.4 average of 5), knowing how
to listen (5th also with 4.4 average) and the ability to persuade others (8th with 4.1 average).
Nevertheless, the ability to debate and the ability to communicate non-verbally are not rated
by these executives as critical, with an average importance of 3.2 and 2.7, respectively.

PROPOSED STUDY AND METHODOLOGY

The main objective of our investigation is to identify the importance of some
communication skills, which, in the opinion of Portuguese managers and executives, are
necessary to negotiate successfully in complex and uncertain business environments. Thus,
the objectives of our study are: (1) to identify the communication traits required for
executives who negotiate in complex and dynamic business situations; (2) to analyze we the
relationships between the perceived importance of the communication skills and the
demographic characteristics of the respondents (gender, formal negotiation training,
professional experience and industry); (3) to analyze we the relationships between the
perceived importance of the communication skills and their negotiating profile.
The traditional research methodology in this area is one of identifying one or more
characteristics to test, selecting a concrete situation, and then measuring the characteristics of
the participants in the simulation (usually students studying for Masters degrees). This is then
usually followed by testing its effect on the process and on the outcomes of the negotiation.
However, we wanted to avoid some of the criticisms that have previously been made of
investigations in this scientific area. With this in mind, instead of an experimental simulation
we used an exploratory study. This enabled us: (1) to test a larger number of communication
skills that could have an influence on negotiation and not just those for which measuring

150

instruments exist; (2) to avoid using a specific bargaining situation, where other factors could
influence the outcome. Instead we used the generic situation of negotiations that take place at
the highest levels of administration in companies; and (3) to obtain results from individuals
who have a great deal of experience in negotiation.
The need to obtain the opinions of business executives that have a rich and varied
experience of bargaining in several managerial contexts obliged us to choose the managers
and executives of top Portuguese companies as the subject population of this study. As we
wanted opinions on the importance of negotiators' characteristics in negotiating in complex
situations, such as those that occur at the highest levels of management, we restricted the
subject population to executives from the board of directors. To validate our study and make
it representative we used executives from the 500 largest Portuguese companies as our
sample. Also increasing the credibility and coherence of our results is the fact that almost all
of the top managers of these organizations have had personal careers marked by several
negotiation situations, which enabled each one to give a more valid contribution. The 500
largest Portuguese companies include companies of various sizes coming from several
activity sectors, thus making our study representative of real Portuguese management.
We divided the survey into two sections. In the first we looked for opinions of
Portuguese managers and executives about the importance of a set of characteristics required
in effective negotiation in uncertain and complex situations. As a reference in selecting a set
of characteristics that define a successful negotiator, we used a survey originally developed
by Chester Karrass (1968), as well as John Hammond's adapted version (1979). These
authors carried out investigations with different objectives, but with the same base
preposition: negotiators need to have a certain set of characteristics which have a decisive
influence on the process and, consequently, on the outcomes of negotiation. We used the
following communication variables:

150

10

1. Ability to express thoughts verbally ability to convey a certain message in a clear

and objective manner;
2. Ability to persuade others ability to convince and influence the opponent of ones
ideas and convictions;
3. Ability to form an argument ability to communicate verbally and intelligibly
complex or abstract thoughts to the other party;
4. Debating skill ability to stimulate the exchange of questions and answers with
the other side of the table, obtaining this way missing information and testing
previously formulated alternatives;
5. Ability to communicate non-verbally ability to communicate and detect nonverbal behaviors, such as use of body language, silence, posture, tone and pitch of
voice, etc.
6. Listening skill ability to actively listen to the other party, questioning them when
there are doubts, and summarizing the main ideas in ones own words.
In the second part of the questionnaire, we looked for the opinion of the surveyed
regarding a series of behaviors, attitudes and perceptions in diverse negotiating situations.
Based on those answers we wanted to define their negotiating profile, that is, how they think
negotiation should be approached (their negotiating style), and the degree of openness and
trust that they should have towards the other party, the pertinence of utilizing a series of
tactics, etc (ethical profile). To formulate this questionnaire we adapted a survey developed
by Lewicki, Saunders and Minton (2000b).
Of the 764 questionnaires sent to the executives of the 500 largest Portuguese
companies in May of 2001, we received 255 responses, of which 24 were eliminated due to
the detection of irregularities. This corresponded to a response rate of 33.4% for received
responses and 30.2% for valid ones.

10

150

11

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The 231 valid replies to our research on the business executives and managers of the
500 largest Portuguese companies provided us with a first analysis of some demographic
characteristics that define this sample and frame the study in a wider and broader perspective.
The high number of replies received, representing a reply rate of 30%, not only attests to the
importance and relevance attributed to this investigation itself, but also guarantees that our
study is representative. The business executives in our sample have an average age of 50 and
on average 25 years of professional experience. Therefore, they are individuals with the
maturity and knowledge that comes with a long career. As they were selected from the
managers of the largest Portuguese companies, in our opinion this represents a normal and
acceptable result, because to achieve a top place in one of these companies it is necessary to
demonstrate competence over several years of activity. As for the gender of those questioned
the sample presents a predominance of males. Of the 224 that indicated gender, just 20 (less
than 9%) were female, while the overwhelming majority was male.
From the analysis of the data gathered from the Portuguese executives and managers
who often deal with wide-ranging negotiating situations, we intend to identify the
determining traits of a successful negotiation and consequently, to define the profile of the
successful negotiator. Tables 3 and 4 synthesize the views of Portuguese executives relative
to the importance of the six identified communication traits, rated by a scale of 5 points (from
1 not important at all to 5- very important).
The main conclusion we draw from the analysis of these data is that the respondents
generally regard communication traits as very important. We can also conclude that the most
important communication skill, according to the opinion of executives from the 500 largest
Portuguese companies, is the ability to know how-to-listen (average 4.65 of 5), although the
remaining communication skills are also perceived as very important. The exception is the

11

150

12

ability to communicate by non-verbal language. Regarding this characteristic, the surveyed

give it a moderate importance, with some divergence of opinion (standard deviation of .96).
TABLE 3 COMMUNICATION VARIABLES STATISTICS
CHARACTERISTIC

CASES

AVG.

MEDIAN

MODE

ST. DEVIAT.

1. Listening skill

231

4.65

5.00

.52

2. Ability to form an argument

231

4.54

5.00

.66

3. Ability to persuade others

231

4.52

5.00

.66

4. Ability to express thoughts verbally

231

4.42

4.00

.63

5. Debating skill

231

4.34

4.00

.69

6. Ability to communicate non-verbally

231

3.49

4.00

.96

TABLE 4 COMMUNICATION VARIABLES FREQUENCIES

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

CHARACTERISTIC

AVG.

1. Listening skill

2%

70

30%

156

68%

4.65

2. Ability to form an argument

1%

1%

10

4%

76

33%

142

62%

4.54

3. Ability to persuade others

1%

16

7%

76

33%

138

60%

4.52

18

8%

99

43%

114

49%

4.42

29

12%

94

41%

108

47%

4.34

10

4%

16

7%

88

38%

85

37%

32

14%

3.49

4. Ability to express thoughts

verbally
5. Debating skill
6. Ability to communicate nonverbally

From analyzing the frequency table (table 4) we confirm our initial conclusions. The
great majority of respondents attribute a rather high importance to communication skills
(98% to listening skill, 95% to ability to form an argument, 93% to ability to persuade, 92%
to ability to express thoughts verbally and 88% to ability to debate). The exception is, as we

12

150

13

saw above, the ability to communicate non-verbally. Relative to this, opinions are divided,
some considering that non-verbal language is not very important (49%), while others state
that, in reality, non-verbal communication has influence in negotiation (51%) although only
14% perceive it as very important.
According to Portuguese managers, the ability to communicate effectively is very
important in negotiating. This conclusion seems to confirm that, also to Portuguese
executives, communication is the heart of the negotiating process. It is through
communication that negotiators make their offers and their demands, attempt to identify the
interests and motivations of the other side in order to reconcile their differences, try to
convince and influence their opponents with their ideas and points of view and, above all,
agree on the terms of a solution that will resolve the conflict of interests. As a result, all the
traits that improve the quality of communication are significant in improving the negotiating
process and in obtaining better outcomes. These include (1) knowing how to listen actively,
to gather data about the interests and motivations of the other party; (2) the ability to form
arguments; (3) the ability to persuade, to convince the opponent of own viewpoints; (4) the
ability to express clearly; and (5) the ability to debate, to create a dynamic of exchange of
questions and answers with the other side of the table. The only trait that seems to divide
the opinions of managers is the ability to communicate non-verbally, that is, the capacity to
communicate through body language, gestures, signs, tone and pitch of voice, posture,
silence, among others. In spite of the literature recognition of the importance of this trait
since it allows, for instance, to win the trust of the other party (be by eye-to-eye contact, be
by close proximity) or to detect suspicious behavior (anxiety and nervousness), the surveyed
are not unanimous in believing that this characteristic has a critical impact in the negotiating
process (only 14% consider it very important). It should be noted that because we questioned
executives of the 500 largest Portuguese companies, we can admit that the influence of power

13

150

14

in negotiation may determine or explain the less significant influence of this variable in top
executives.

COMMUNICATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS

To understand the existing relationship between the demographic characteristics of the
respondents and their perceptions about the communication traits that single out an effective
negotiator, we cross-analyzed the individual traits and the results of the rating of the
significance of communication traits required in effective business negotiators.

GENDER
A first analysis took place about the impact of the respondents gender in their
perceptions about the importance of communication characteristics in negotiation. As
referred above, because our sample included just 9% of women (20 answers) the results
should be accepted cautiously. The results of the variance analysis and Kruskal-Wallis test
are shown in table 5.
TABLE 5 GENDER
AVG. MEN

AVG. WOMEN

ONE-WAY

KRUSKAL

(204 RESPONSES)

(20 RESPONSES)

ANOVA (SIG.)

WALLIS (SIG.)

1- Ability to form an argument

4.54

4.55

0.945

0.871

2- Debating skill

4.35

4.20

0.350

0.310

3- Ability to persuade others

4.50

4.60

0.546

0.764

4- Ability to express thoughts verbally

4.41

4.55

0.351

0.340

5- Ability to communicate non-verbally

3.41

4.00

0.008

0.009

6- Listening skill

4.64

4.75

0.359

0.395

COMMUNICATION TRAITS

14

150

15

Relatively to the six communication characteristics examined, the only statistically

significant differences are detected in the area of non-verbal communication skills (Kruskal
Wallis with sig. .0009). Apparently, women place a higher value in non-verbal
communication and give more importance to the detection of non-explicit signals such as
posture, eye contact or silence, among others, which may lead to a greater trust or distrust
between the parties. This result seems to confirm the greater feminine sensitivity towards
others, giving a larger importance to all the non-verbal communication that takes place during
the negotiating process (Hall, 1984; Rosenthal and DePaulo, 1979b).

NEGOTIATION TRAINING
Training in negotiation can also trigger changes in the perceptions of the respondents,
namely in the importance attributed to the observed communication characteristics. Of the
221 answers about frequency of negotiation training, 121 (55% of the sample) are
affirmative. Table 6 shows the results of average importance of each one of the traits in
relation to the negotiation training of the inquired, as well as the respective variance analysis
and the non- parametric Kruskal-Wallis test.
TABLE 6 NEGOTIATION TRAINING
AVG. TRAINED

AVG. NOT TRAINED

ONE-WAY

KRUSKAL WALLIS

(121 RESPONSES)

(100 RESPONSES)

ANOVA (SIG.)

(SIG.)

1- Ability to form an argument

4.54

4.54

0.975

0.453

2- Debating skill

4.31

4.39

0.375

0.507

3- Ability to persuade others

4.42

4.62

0.028

0.039

4- Ability to express thoughts verbally

4.40

4.45

0.534

0.683

5- Ability to communicate non-verbally

3.36

3.58

0.168

0.053

6- Listening skill

4.78

4.50

0.000

0.000

COMMUNICATION TRAITS

15

150

16

The main difference resides in the importance that those who had already attended
training sessions attribute to listening ability. Training helps to emphasize the importance of
perceiving the opposing perspective as a determining variable in negotiation, both in
competitive and collaborative situations. Therefore, more than trying to dissuade the other, it
is important to understand their perspective and to listen to them actively. It is by listening
that one gathers information about the interests and motivations of the other party, which will
allow reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement. However, in spite of the statistically
significant difference we came across, both groups consider this skill fundamental in a
successful negotiator (average of 4.78 and 4.5 out of 5). The other difference lies in the
greater importance given to the negotiators ability to persuade others by executives who
didnt attend training sessions. Here, the results are inverted. Training may have influenced
this result considering that training greatly emphasizes the preparation for a negotiation.
Therefore, the surveyed that had already attended training sessions in this area may have
minimized the importance of persuasiveness in benefit of a good preparation. That is, they
may have considered that the success of a negotiator relies more on preparation than on the
ability to persuade the other party of own ideas and convictions.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
The professional experience of the inquired is another characteristic that may
influence their perceptions. As we saw before, the average professional experience in our
sample is approximately 25 years; therefore, we subdivided the group into two groups, one
with individuals with under 25 years and another above 25 years of professional experience.
The results are those presented in table 7.

16

150

17

TABLE 7 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

AVG.

AVG.

EXP.< 25 ANOS

EXP.> 25 ANOS

(102 RESPNSES)

(110 RESPONSES)

1- Ability to form an argument

4.48

2- Debating skill

ONE-WAY

KRUSKAL WALLIS

ANOVA (SIG.)

(SIG.)

4.57

0.323

0.219

4.26

4.38

0.227

0.193

3- Ability to persuade others

4.50

4.52

0.844

0.959

4- Ability to express thoughts verbally

4.41

4.44

0.775

0.567

5- Ability to communicate non-verbally

3.51

3.49

0.888

0.933

6- Listening skill

4.55

4.77

0.028

0.031

COMMUNICATION TRAITS

From the results shown in table 7 we can conclude that generally the executives with
the longest professional experience give the same importance to the communication traits
required from negotiators. The only skill where significant statistical differences arise (test of
F sig. = .028) is the listening ability. The most experienced negotiators value more the ability
to listen than the least experienced ones (4.77 average versus 4.55). This result, similar to that
of negotiation training, leads us to believe that professional experience and training have the
same impact in recognizing the importance of perceiving the other partys perspective. To
negotiators, listening actively to the other party, questioning them when there are doubts and
summarizing the main ideas in their own words to confirm their interpretation of the main
ideas, is a source of competitive advantage. These results confirm the relevance of this skill
to the success of a negotiation.

17

150

18

INDUSTRY
Finally, we intended to establish if executives from different industries perceive
differently the importance of the communication traits required from negotiators. In our study
we opted for a division into five industries: 1 Manufacturing (50 responses, 24.5% of
sample), 2 Commerce (68 responses, 33.3% of sample), 3 Services (47 responses, 23% of
sample), 4 Telecommunications, New Technologies and Media (18 responses, 8% of
sample) and 5 Construction (21 responses, 10.3% of sample). This separation appears to be
the most accurate, considering that all these areas have a different dynamic that may, or not,
influence the negotiation process and, consequently, require different skills from the
negotiators. The results are those presented in table 8.
TABLE 8 INDUSTRY
COMMUNICATION TRAITS

ONE-WAY ANOVA (SIG.)

KRUSKAL WALLIS (SIG.)

1- Ability to form an argument

0.812

0.898

2- Debating skill

0.992

0.994

3- Ability to persuade others

0.233

0.122

4- Ability to express thoughts verbally

0.764

0.857

5- Ability to communicate non-verbally

0.281

0.199

6- Listening skill

0.312

0.249

As we can verify, for each one of the traits the level of significance of F test is higher
than .05. The non-existence of statistically significant differences between the perceptions of
individuals from different industries leads us to conclude that independently of the sector of
activity, the perceived communication skills of a superior negotiator are the same. That is, the
communication skills that define an effective negotiator has absolutely no relationship to
his/her industry.

18

150

19

COMMUNICATION AND NEGOTIATING STYLES: COMPETITIVE VS. COLLABORATIVE

The second part of the questionnaire used a set of statements of negotiating attitudes
and behaviors for which we asked the agreement or disagreement of the respondents. The
purpose was to identify the respondents perceived correct negotiation posture in different
negotiating situations. More specifically, our objective was to identify the negotiation
strategies more widely adopted and/or defended by executives of the largest Portuguese
companies, in order to establish relationships between those styles and the selected
communication variables.

TABLE 8 NEGOTIATING STYLES OF PORTUGUESE EXECUTIVES

FACTOR LOADINGS
The best outcome in a negotiation is one that is fair to all parties.

0.842

Most of the negotiation results can be reached through cooperation between the parties.

0.811

Honesty and openness are necessary to reach an equitable agreement.

0.688

The most important thing in a negotiation is to win.

-0.303

0.681

A good negotiator should be aggressive, i.e., he/she should take the initiative if he/she
0.652
wants to accomplish his/her own objectives.
An unanswered threat will be interpreted by the counterpart as a sign of weakness.

0.605

Principles are a very nice thing to have, but sometimes a negotiator needs to
0.433
compromise his/her values and principles to achieve his/her objectives.
A negotiator should remain expressionless (poker faced): one must not show ones
0.432
emotions until the deal is concluded.

From the factorial analysis of principal components of the data obtained regarding
eight negotiating situations it was possible to identify two typical negotiating styles (see table

19

150

20

8). Factor 1, which we designated Collaborative Style, combines the variables associated with
a cooperative attitude from negotiators, namely openness, trust and cooperation to guarantee
a fair and satisfactory outcome for both parties. This type of approach requires from
negotiators not that they maximize their own individual outcomes but a joint effort in finding
a solution which, once conflicts of interests are solved, maximizes the results of both parties.
The negative loading attributed to negotiators competitiveness and the desire to win supports
our interpretation. On its turn, factor 2 (Competitive Style) accumulates the variables that
characterize a competitive negotiating approach, which are competitiveness and
aggressiveness. Two additional variables emerge, of less weight but confirming this
interpretation: (1) control of emotions and (2) the preoccupation to maximize results, even if
at the cost of compromising some principles.
Once identified the variables that characterize negotiating collaborative and
competitive styles, we proceeded to perform the clusters analysis that enabled us to find
homogeneous groups of individuals in their approach to negotiation. From this analysis we
obtained two groups: the first one with 162 individuals and the second with 69. Cluster 1
shows a negative average regarding factor 1 (average -.206) and positive regarding factor 2
(average .484). The opposite takes place with cluster 2 (average of factor 1 is .460 and
average of factor 2 is 1.079). We believe that the individuals that compose cluster 1 are the
most competitive, and those of cluster 2 the most collaborative. In table 9 we illustrate the
results of the average importance of each one of the communication traits, relative to the
negotiating profile of the surveyed, as well as the respective variance analysis and the nonparametric test of Kruskal-Wallis.

20

150

21

TABLE 9 NEGOTIATING STYLE (COMPETITIVE VS. COLLABORATIVE)

GROUP 1 AVG.

GROUP 2 AVG.

COMPETITIVE

COLLABORATIVE

(162 ANSWERS)

(69 ANSWERS)

1- Ability to form an argument

4.61

2- Debating skill

ONE-WAY

KRUSKAL WALLIS

ANOVA (SIG.)

(SIG.)

4.38

0.041

0.037

4.47

4.12

0.002

0.004

3- Ability to persuade others

4.54

4.46

0.445

0.657

4- Ability to express thoughts verbally

4.41

4.43

0.764

0.767

5- Ability to communicate non-verbally

3.48

3.52

0.738

0.978

6- Listening skill

4.49

4.80

0.027

0.019

AGGRESSIVE TRAITS

As we can observe, there are statistically significant differences in three of the six
studied communication traits. The most competitive negotiators give a greater importance
both to the ability to form an argument and the ability to debate. This result confirms, in our
view, the definition itself of a competitive negotiator, that is, the greater concern with
imposing his/her points of view and a lesser concern with the opposing interests. Curiously,
although they place a higher value the ability to persuade, the difference is not statistically
significant. Lastly, the listening skill is more valued by the collaborative ones. It is, actually,
almost unanimously considered by them to be a very important trait (average of 4.8 of 5).
This result seems reasonable considering that it is by listening that negotiators can understand
the opinions of others, feel their emotions and their anxieties, something that is indispensable
in reaching an advantageous agreement to both parties. This typically collaborative approach
has just been supported by the results.

21

150

22

COMMUNICATION AND NEGOTIATING ETHICS

The ethical conduct of managers in negotiations may also influence their perceptions
of the importance of communication traits. Therefore, we questioned the respondents about a
series of negotiating tactics with the objective of identifying different ethical approaches.
After the factorial analysis of principal components of the data gathered regarding nine
negotiating tactics, it was possible to subdivide them into two sets of typical negotiating
tactics (see table 10).

TABLE 10 ETHICAL CONDUCT OF PORTUGUESE EXECUTIVES

FACTOR LOADINGS
Leading the opponent into error by distorting important information is perfectly acceptable as

0.809

long as the intended outcome is reached.

Hiding and/or omitting pertinent information are ethically accepted attitudes in a negotiating

0.747

context.
Honesty means openness, sincerity, telling all and not withholding pertinent information to an

-0.721

opponent during a negotiation.

It is not reproachable to lie to an opponent in a negotiating situation as long as you dont get

0.627

caught.
Bluffing is a mandatory behavior in a successful negotiation.
There is no need for a negotiator to be completely open towards the opponent. In negotiation, as

0.483

0.451

in life, what they dont know wont hurt them.

Fear is a stronger persuader than trust.
Making an initial offer that is so high (or low) that may seriously compromise the trust and points

0.735

0.643

of reference of the opponent is an acceptable negotiating tactic.

Imposing personal discomfort on an opponent is not too high price to pay for success in

0.609

negotiation.

22

150

23

The first extracted factor is associated to ethical consideration about the sharing of
information among negotiators. All included variables have in common a posture that
translates into manipulation and distortion of the information transmitted to the other party.
Consequently, the high significance of variables such as distortions, lies, omissions and
bluffing when sharing information with the other party. Reinforcing this idea, the negative
weight of honesty as meaning sincerity and openness towards the other party. This result is
logical since the individuals who consider ethically acceptable to lie, omit and distort could
not share the opinion that honesty means total openness and sharing of information with the
opponent. For all these reasons, we have named this factor Deceptive Tactics. To these
respondents honesty is not synonymous of complete sharing of available information, since
their concept of ethical negotiating behavior includes lying, bluffing, etc. as acceptable
negotiating tactics. On the other hand, the second factor includes tactics relative to an
aggressive negotiating approach, that is, what some authors consider to be traditional
competitive bargaining strategies (Lewicki and Robinson, 1998). Two examples are the use
of forceful tactics (such as fear) as a negotiating weapon, or offers excessively high or low
that may compromise the trust of the opponent. Usually, this negotiating style causes
discomfort to the opponent. For all these reasons we designate this factor Tough Negotiating
Tactics.
Afterward, we conducted a clusters analysis with the purpose of finding homogeneous
groups of individuals regarding their concept of ethical negotiating conduct. The results
revealed the existence of three groups: one with 95 individuals and two others with 68 each.
The three groups have distinct behaviors regarding the two identified factors. Group 1
consists of the individuals who consider that using tough negotiating tactics (average of
factor 2 = .878) is an acceptable behavior, even if that implies causing personal discomfort to
the opponent. The other two do not agree with the use of this type of tactics. As far as sharing

23

150

24

information with the other side, group 1 maintains a neutral stance; they are not adamantly
against or pro the use of tactics of deception. Group 3 distinguishes from the others because
they consider that it is ethic to use this kind of tactics. They believe that an attitude of little
openness is perfectly acceptable and that, therefore, it is legitimate to use tactics such as
bluffing, lying or distortion of information to increase their advantage towards their opponent
or to devalue their negotiating position. Group 2 includes those individuals who consider that
the use of any of these tactics is reprehensible. That is, they believe that it is not ethical to use
tactics that manipulate information or that are too aggressive towards the other party. Table
11 summarizes the profile of each one of the established groups.

TABLE 11 CLUSTER ANALYSIS

CLUSTER

NO. OF CASES

TOUGH TACTICS

MISINFORMATION TACTICS

DESCRIPTION

95

Ethical

Neutral

Tough

68

Non ethical

Non ethical

Honest

68

Non ethical

Ethical

Deceitful

We can verify that we identified three groups of individuals, one of 95 and the other two of
68. Cluster 1 is composed of tough negotiators, who consider ethical the use of aggressive negotiating
tactics such as threats or blackmail. Cluster 2 is composed of the most open and trustworthy
negotiators. They believe that both the use of aggressive tactics and misinformation are not ethical.
Lastly, cluster 3 is composed of the deceitful individuals. These, while considering that
aggressiveness is not ethical negotiation behavior, believe that is acceptable to misinform, lie, bluff or
omit pertinent information to their negotiating rival. In table 12 we present the results of the variance
analysis and of the Kruskal-Wallis test regarding each one of the clusters.

24

150

25

TABLE 12 NEGOTIATION ETHICS (TOUGH VS. HONEST VS. DECEITFUL)

GROUP 2 AVG.

GROUP 2 AVG.

GROUP 3 AVG.

AGGRESSIVE

HONEST

DECEITFUL

(95 ANSWERS)

(68 ANSWERS)

(68 ANSWERS)

1- Ability to form an argument

4.47

4.49

4.69

0.084

2- Debating skill

4.27

4.38

4.40

0.454

3- Ability to persuade others

4.46

4.50

4.60

0.408

4- Ability to express thoughts verbally

4.34

4.47

4.47

0.288

5- Ability to communicate non-verbally

3.45

3.47

3.56

0.774

6- Listening skill

4.55

4.82

4.58

0.006

AGGRESSIVENESS TRAITS

ONE-WAY ANOVA
(SIG.)

We can conclude that, out of all the studied communication variables, the only one
where we find statistically significant differences between the groups demonstrating different
ethical behaviors is in listening ability (sig. = .006). The executives belonging to the honesty
cluster value this characteristic more highly than the rest. This result is perfectly
understandable since knowing how to listen fits into the profile of a negotiator who is totally
concerned with the clarity and total disclosure of the real interests and motivations of both
parts. The fact that we dont find statistically meaningful differences in the remaining
variables seems to corroborate the idea that, independently of the ethical posture adopted,
communication variables are always highly important, regardless of the desired objectives.

CONCLUSION
Confirming some of the conclusions of prior studies about the importance of
communication skills in obtaining the best results in any negotiating process, our study of the
most able and experienced executives of Portugal demonstrated that the variables most

25

150

26

directly connected to communication are considered among the most important out of the 52
traits examined. The six communication variables we studied are classified in the following
relative positions: Listening skill (1st), Ability to form an argument (5th), Ability to persuade
others (6th), Ability to express thoughts verbally (9th), Debating skill (15th) and Ability to
communicate non-verbally (41st). It is worth emphasizing that Listening skill was considered
the most important among the 52 traits we studied, and this result proves that knowing to
listen is a fundamental skill for any executive performing in complex and competitive
business environments. As Fisher, Ury and Patton (1991) support, the need to listen is
fundamental, particularly in very stressful situations, such as a negotiation.
In the present study we attempted also to understand the relationships between the
importance of the referred six traits in the profile of a superior negotiator and some individual
characteristics of the surveyed executives. Listening skill is the trait considered as the most
important out of all that are desirable in a negotiator, and where we found the most
significant statistical differences between the trained and non-trained, and those with the
longest and shortest amount of professional experience. This result reveals, in our
understanding, the need to try to provide all the executives, from early on, with a superior
active listening ability in order to empower their individual negotiation competence and that
of their organizations. The inexistence of significant differences in the importance of all the
communication variables throughout different industries further enhances this conclusion. A
more in-depth study about the different relevance that female and male executives assign to
non-verbal communication skills is warranted. While it was considered one of the least
important variables in our study, it seems to be of a significantly higher importance to the
female executives than to the male ones. This may uncover new research clues towards
improving our knowledge about the relationship between communication and negotiation
processes. The study conducted by Gruenfeld and Berger (2002), which tries to analyze the

26

150

27

influence of power in communication, appears to be a very enriching approach in

understanding this issue.
Finally, we concluded that the importance attributed to the communication variables is
substantially more influenced by the negotiating approach of the respondents than by their
ethical behavior. In fact, we saw that competitive negotiators tend to value more the ability to
from arguments and to debate than the collaborative negotiators, even considering the ability
to form an argument as the main communication trait. On the contrary, collaborative
negotiators consider knowing how to listen as the main communication trait, giving it a much
larger importance than the competitive managers. The concept of negotiating ethics of
executives doesnt seem to affect the importance they attribute to the communication
variables studied, with the exception of the ability to listen. This trait is considered
significantly more important by truthful negotiators than by the aggressive and the deceiving
ones.

27

150

28

REFERENCES
Axtell, R. E. (1991). Gestures: dos and taboos of body language around the world. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of Type A behavior and
self-monitoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, pp.
281-296.
Chatman, J., Putnam, L., & Solnak, H. (1991). Integrating Communication and Negotiation
Research. In M. Bazerman, R. Lewicki & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on
Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 3, pp. 139-164. Greenwich: JAI Press.
DePaulo, B., & Friedman, H. (1998). Non-verbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th Ed.) NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Ertel, D. (2000). Turning negotiation into a corporate capability. In Harvard Business Review
on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, pp. 101-127. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Fisher, R., & Davis, W. (1987). Six basic interpersonal skills for a negotiators repertoire.
Negotiation Journal, April 1987, pp: 117-122.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Como Conduzir uma Negociao ? (Portuguese
edition of Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in). Porto: Edies
Asa.
Gruenfeld, D., & Berger, G. (2002). Power and communication: Semantic vs. pragmatic
messages. Working- Paper. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the
International Association for Conflict Management, Salt Lake City, USA.
Hall, J. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

28

150

29

Hall, J. (1987). On explaining gender differences: The case of nonverbal communication. In

P. Shaver and C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender: Review of personality and social
psychology (vol. 7, pp. 177-200). Newbury Park: Sage.
Hammond, J. S. (1979). Characteristics of an effective negotiator. Harvard Business School
Note #179-029.
Karrass, C. (1968). A study of the relationship of negotiator skill and power as determinants
of negotiation outcome. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2000a). Negotiation (3rd Ed.). Singapore:
McGraw-Hill International Editions.
Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2000b). Negotiation: Readings, exercises
and cases (3rd Ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill International Editions.
Lewicki, R., & Robinson, R. (1998). Ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: An empirical
study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, pp. 665-682.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
Nierenberg, G. (1976). The Complete Negotiator. New York: Nierenberg & Zeif Publishers.
Olekalns, M., Smith, P., & Walsh, T. (1996). The process of negotiation: Strategy and timing
as predictors of outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 68, pp: 68-77.
Putnam, L, & Poole, M. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts,
&

L.

Porter

(Eds.),

Handbook

of

organizational

communication:

An

interdisciplinary perspective (pp: 549-599). Newbury Park: Sage.

Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. (1979a). Sex diferences in accomodation in nonverbal
communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication:
Individual differences (pp. 68-103). Cambridge: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain.

29

150

30

Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. (1979b). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (2), 273-285.
Shell, G. (1999). Expert negotiating. Harvard Management Communication Letter,
December 1999, pp: 3-4.
Shell, G. (1999). Bargaining for advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people.
London: Penguin.
Thompson, L. (2001). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle Rive:
Prentice-Hall.
Tutzauer, F. (1992). The communication of offers in dyadic bargaining. In L. Putnam & M.
Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp: 67-82). Newbury Park: Sage.
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An
analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill.

30